Movies & Meat Thermometers

It's the kind of report that makes you wonder what's happened to our country.

The theater was packed for a 9 p.m. Saturday screening of the Martin Scorsese horror movie, "Shutter Island" when the victim complained about a woman near him who was using a cell phone during the show.

She and two men with her left the movie theater.

Two men returned a few minutes later and stabbed the victim, said sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore. The victim was hospitalized but is expected to survive.

Two other people who attempted to help the victim were also injured in the altercation.

Sheriff's officials describe the suspects as black males. One man was wearing an orange hat with an orange jacket or jersey.

The first thought that comes to mind is "What kind of weird (or wired) nut-job brings a meat thermometer to the movie theater?" Or carries it with him in his car?

My second thought was a validation of sorts as to why I don't go see movies much anymore. The social compact has broken down, even here in God's country. Rude behavior that, had it occurred, would not have been tolerated in years' past is now customary. Men and women of all ages talk on their cellphones or, almost as annoying, text one another, the ghostly blue light of their tiny little screens flickering on their faces and those of all others who are near. Or the guy behind you routinely kicks your chair at least once every two minutes just to let you know he's still alive and, well, kickin'.

When I do go to movies more often than not they are matinees when the crowds are thinner, although the inconsideration of some moviegoers often makes up for the lack of numbers. The other strategy is to pick a movie to which I am certain the lemmings are not lurching, or whatever it is that lemmings do. That's why I saw "Men Who Stare at Goats." (I thought it was pretty good, but then there were only five people in the theater, so I could give it my undivided attention.)

I used to see a lot of movies. I made up for a deprived childhood on the farm once I managed to find a career in the big city. Love movies, and still do. I've fallen out of love with movie audiences, however. So I do my movie watching at home. DVD and home theater systems and Orville Redenbacher give you everything you need to recreate the Big Screen experience, except Butterfinger candy and I'm not supposed to be eating those anyway. Plus having a remote control means the ability to visit a CLEAN restroom without missing any of the action!

Sure, you have to wait a few months for the movies to be released, but that gives me time to do my research and waste fewer entertainment dollars on cinematic garbage.

My only sadness this year was having the Oscars roll around and, even though the field was doubled from five to ten, I had not seen a single Best Picture nominee. My children, who have movie theater work experience, think I've lost it.

They could be right. But at least I don't have a meat thermometer sticking in my neck.

Is Secular Liberalism Our Future?

Rod Dreher has an excellent, if thoroughly depressing, essay posted at Real Clear Politics, entitled, "Secular Liberalism as Consensus." An excerpt:

Liberalism depends on the modernist conviction that neither religion nor tradition nor inherited loyalties has any binding authority on us. Anything that denies equal freedom is to be condemned as oppressive and marginalized, even outlawed.

This is what Kalb means by liberalism's "tyranny." Having abandoned the idea that the Good stands outside the individual's judgment, our common life becomes a matter of negotiating preferences and satisfying wants.

In terms of the current cultural war over same sex marriages, the result may well be inevitable, if this analysis holds true.

"If you can redefine [marriage] so that the sex of the parties has nothing to do with it, then you can redefine anything in human life any way you want," Kalb told me in an interview. "Man becomes the artifact of whoever is in power." [snip]

[Traditionalists] are on the losing side of this argument, at least in the short run, given the cultural conditioning of latter-day Americans.

Like I said, not going to make a conservative feel much better, but recommended so that you know what you are up against.

If They're Running You Out of Town, Act Like it's a Parade

The good news from Connecticut is that, in the face of a vast protest unprecedented in state history, the two lawmakers who were trying to push legislation to steal parishes away from the Catholic church have given up the atttempt.

For now.

Their rationale, however, is insane.

The Democratic co-chairs of the legislature's judiciary committee, Rep. Michael P. Lawlor of East Haven and Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford, just released the following statement:

"For reasons that are unclear, Connecticut has had generations-old laws on the books singling out particular religions and treating them differently from other religions in our statutes. That doesn't seem right. In fact, many of our existing corporate laws dealing with particular religious groups appear to us to be unconstitutional under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If that is correct, any changes to that law would likely also be unconstitutional.

"With that in mind, it would serve no useful purpose to have a conversation about changing the laws that govern existing Roman Catholic corporations until we know if any of these existing laws are constitutional."

Lawlor and McDonald are going to ask the state attorney general for an opinion on the constitutionality of the various laws in question, and then convene a religious forum to try to build a consensus for their new regulations. In the meantime they will try to persuade the Connecticut bishops to unilaterally surrender to the dissident Voice of the Faithful.

"... we think it would be most beneficial if the proponents who requested these changes and church officials meet together privately to see if they can come to a resolution on their own. Open and honest communication between these two groups could only help. For our part, we intend to reach out to representatives of the Catholic Conference and continue the discussion that began in 2008 on this issue. We hope they will agree to meet with us."

I would encourage the bishops to tell them to go to hell, although I suspect the bishops will be a bit more diplomatic about it. Mostly, I would not trust Lawlor, McDonald or any of the VOTF people as far as I could throw them. I suspect they will attempt to exploit any existing inequities to promote division among Christian groups, rather than actually work to create laws more in keeping with the First Amendment.

The good guys won this battle, but the war is far from over.

Catholic Church Under Attack by State of Connecticut

The culture war on faith and religion is ratcheting up several notches.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, are considered fundamental, priority rights that event the separate states cannot violate (and their assent to them came when they accepted the Constitution at the time of their statehood).

So why is the legislature of the state of Connecticut attempting to restructure the Roman Catholic Church, at least as it operates in that state? Because the church is a target of opportunity. According to the Diocese of Bridgeport:

This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.

The pretext for the state action is that it is "responding" to the complaints of Catholic dissidents who complain that the Church's hierarchical structure is not democratic and has led to abuses of various sorts. Nevermind that these dissidents are certainly free to exercise their right to withdraw from the church. No one is forcing them to remain. The real agenda is that these people want to change the belief system of the church to one that mirrors theirs: acceptance of homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, a female priesthood, etc.

In other words, if the ancient Church won't change itself to the world, then by golly they'll get the worldly government to change it for them.

We expect this effort to fail. The fact that it is even taking place is a sign, however, that the old constitutional safeguards soon may not be enough to protect traditional Christian organizations.

Every person of faith, be they Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim, should realize that if Connecticut succeeds in taking out the Catholic church, then any state can do the same to a Baptist church, a mosque, a synagogue, an ashram, or reading room.

UPDATE -- Tom Hoopes at the National Catholic Register gives more details, including how the dissident Voice of the Faithful is in league with certain politicians to attempt a political power grab with the Catholic church as as the spoils. Some politicians, he says, want payback for the bishops support of the defense of marriage act. The good news, Hoopes says, is that this is a legislative battle the Church should win on both grounds of both constitution and faith.

Gay Civil Union Protests in Hawaii

The Culture War continues: This time the battle is in Hawaii.

Will the Obama weigh in on this one? It is his "home" state, or so it is alleged.